This recent answer posits that due to a hypothetical decline in "interesting" questions, a large number of high-reputation users have been decreasing their activity on the site, especially in the number of questions they answer. I found that hypothesis and analysis interesting enough to be addressed outside the context of its question (which was focused primarily on other issues).

My questions are:

Is it true that most high-reputation users have been decreasing their answering activity recently?

If so, why is it occurring? (Input from high-reputation users whose activity has slowed would be very useful)

Other considerations are:

Is it a problem? (Perhaps it is simply a case of SO becoming more "democratic", with lower reputation users and "newer blood" filling the gap).

If so, how can it be slowed or stopped?

To be clear, I do not necessarily agree with the original post that this decrease in high-rep user activity comes from a decline in question quality, nor that such a decline in quality necessarily exists. I could imagine several alternative hypotheses, as have others:

Most users increase their activity over time before hitting a peak and decreasing (as suggested by Gaël Laurans here)

An increase in low-rep answerers has decreased the need for high-rep answerers (as suggested by podiluska here)

That some users may be motivated by reaching the top level of privilege (20K rep), and are less motivated to answer after reaching it

That high-reputation users have become not less active, but rather more selective, editing or voting to close low-quality questions rather than answering them (an analysis of their commenting, editing and reviewing behavior might help confirm this)

That high-reputation users earn a steady "income" from old posts, and it is therefore no longer necessary to answer to gain rep (as suggested by Martijn Pieters here)

I'm only at 37k now, so not one of the really high-rep users, but personally I find that the last of your 8 bullet points is spot on at least for me personally. I'm much less interested in answering as I am in seeing interesting answers that I can learn from. I also am more selective about what questions I answer. Nowadays I mostly try to answer stuff that I personally find interesting, rather than what I think would give me the most reputation (interestingly these two goals are pretty much uncombinable for my main field of interest).
–
Niklas B.Apr 29 '14 at 16:47

13

I also don't think this is a problem. The good questions still tend to get very good answers, whether by high- or low-rep users, and I don't really care about bad questions.
–
Niklas B.Apr 29 '14 at 16:56

111

You can only answer so many question about how to properly do a group by before you get burned out.
–
ZaneApr 29 '14 at 18:18

83

Yes, because the quality of "new" questions is going in the toilet. Almost everything I see sucks or is a duplicate.
–
Aaron BertrandApr 29 '14 at 18:25

3

@AaronBertrand: As an interesting sidenote, your answering activity shows only a mild decrease over the past two years (indeed, according to my test it's not statistically significant)
–
David RobinsonApr 29 '14 at 18:30

5

I'm personally bored from the tag I've been participating the most (Delphi). There's a lot of repetitive questions. Askers usually listen only the highest rep users ignoring the others (but they are under certain pressure sometimes). No motivation to reach a new privilege is also a bit demotivating for me. But I'm glad it happened, since I've started to invest my time into living :) [I'm not a high rep user though]
–
TLamaApr 29 '14 at 19:39

23

@NiklasB. "I'm only at 37k"... it does not compute... is there life after 20k?
–
brasofiloApr 29 '14 at 21:53

15

@NiklasB. I always thought 10k was the entrance to high-rep, but I guess in SO terms, this is just Junior's High Rep :)
–
brasofiloApr 29 '14 at 22:00

10

I'm personally kind of curious what the trend is for those of us much closer to 3k (like me). I personally hit a pretty big wall after I hit 3.6k or so (I've gained less than 300 rep in the last 6 months). Except for the "reaching 20k" bullet-point, I'd say the bullet points could apply to us too.
–
Dennis MengApr 30 '14 at 5:39

25

I spend pretty much all my time now (which has not decreased) looking for things to answer. Unfortunately, that often just turns up nill and I end up just burning through my close/downvotes then going away in disgust.
–
Brian RoachMay 1 '14 at 2:39

102

The UI is built to make it super-easy to ask questions, not find answers. Now that we have all the most common questions the UI needs reworking to streamline getting the answer; not asking the question. If it is easier for a noob to find the answer than to ask then the average quality will improve.
–
John MeeMay 2 '14 at 5:20

2

@JohnMee maybe true, but I personally just use google to find an answer, which works well for me. If there is a good match on stackoverflow it will be visible in google. for some noob-questions I just copy & paste the question title as-is into google and get a perfect answer. for me, the research workflow is (most of the time) 1) google, 2) read a book, 3) ask a friend, 4) ask on SO. that's why I ask so few questions.
–
MichaelMay 2 '14 at 12:41

5

This is one of the most interesting posts I've read on meta in quite a while.
–
Carrie KendallMay 2 '14 at 20:30

5

The high rep folks can be really hit and miss. Sometimes they help, sometimes they chastise or make fun of people. Maybe it has something to do with wading through "don't use mysql_* functions..." comments on EVERY piece of code that uses them (aren't we supposed to stay on topic?) I see people belittled for too much code, too little code. I see people rip people apart for not providing code (even though that isn't listed as a deal breaker on the "how to ask a question" page). Maybe they're just burned out on the negativity?
–
MatttMay 2 '14 at 20:35

11

Sorry to be redundant, but to echo some of the above: I’ve also stopped answering as much because the ratio of horrible questions to half-decent ones has increased. On the other hand, it’s my job to close them… oh, and of course, the fact that this question and its accepted answer got so many upvotes. And the state of suggested edits. Oops, got off track.
–
minitech♦May 3 '14 at 2:04

I am skeptical that Stack Overflow is or ever was built on "meaningful social connections", as it's not a social network. Unlike all the networks cited by the articles you point to, SO does not have features for "friends," the ability to "follow" users, or private messaging.
–
David RobinsonMay 7 '14 at 23:07

2

+1 for "Regrettably, this problem probably cannot be fixed." It is too late now.
–
kapaMay 9 '14 at 6:38

Your hypothesis has likely answered your question as best as anyone is able to guess.

For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Without Statistics and Polling to support the premise suggested by your question you can not know it is true, nor can simply asking this question (of us) necessarily provide the correct answer.

Your questions are:

Is it true that most high-reputation users have been decreasing their
answering activity recently?

If so, why is it occurring? (Input from
high-reputation users whose activity has slowed would be very useful)

Then you ponder:

Is it a problem? (Perhaps it is simply a case of SO becoming more "democratic", with lower reputation users and "newer blood" filling the gap).

If so, how can it be slowed or stopped?

.

Your question is akin to asking if the elderly will pass away. Yes, people get older, gain new interests (which occupy their time), lose interest in past activities, occupy their time answering questioning rather than learning (which inhibits their ability to answer newer questions), AND they rest on their Laurels. It is not being elderly that causes them to pass away, look at how many young people die; some before or shortly after birth, more go in their teen years, often males but females have worked to catch up in recent years.

Without ability / time or incentive (thanks / $) their contribution to Society is likely to wane. I try to stay up to date in what interests ME and limit the time spent answering questions, in general, and especially ones that are the so-called uninteresting questions.

You assume that IF there where a decline (which is not established) that it is entirely to do with the "High Reputation Users" and call for answers specifically from them (labelling such answers as very useful). There is a suggestion that this is a matter that they are entirely responsible for (either suggesting that they are causing the "problem" or that there is a call for them to answer for it).

Users with a high reputation, in the past, may have been ones that provided the most friendly or funny answer but not necessarily the so-called best answer (the truth). The truth can sometimes hurt. You assign the blame (responsibility) for the high reputation to the holder of the said Reputation and not to the ones who assigned it to the person.

Relationship Advisors may have the lowest "reputation" yet the answers they provided HERE may have been the "best", just not the most "voted up". Mathematical problems or questions about Computer Algorithms may have been answered by proving just a 'correct answer' (and thus received a "Vote Up") but are not necessarily the so-called "best answer".

Suggesting that you learn the Abacus rather than suggesting a Solar-powered Calculator may have been a popular answer at one time, but now that time has past (one is less expensive and faster, the other looks 'cool', especially when you get good at using it quickly).

Suggesting that the matter be settled with a Dual or a 'Battle to the Death' in the Coliseum was once popular, how often do you hear of this suggestion in recent times. Is that the fault of the answerer, that people decided they wanted a different answer; why did they not come up with the so-called Solution on their own.

It was the answer, once popular, when put into practice that made a new answer more popular; not a fault per-se of the answerer but of the questioner -- question answered, problem solved -- now no one asked the so-called 'stupid question' or it's off to the Coliseum with you (or so they fear, as that IS all they know).

.

You go on to ask if it is a "problem". How can we know without an understanding of how the reputation was gained. Do they have a funny sounding name, a 'cool' name, a likeable name. Do they answer directly or try engaging everyone in a friendly chat (giving more 'answer spots' on which to receive the 'Vote Up' clicks).

You then assume we must slow or stop this activity, that the slowing of participation from the higher reputation answerers is necessarily a bad thing, or at least something that you want slowed or stopped. It seems a call for them to do more and not teach but instead displace the answering by ones with a lower reputation.

Those with a lower reputation are not necessarily "bad", not by default "bad people" nor "bad answerers". Reputation is not tied to answers given nor time, AFAIK. IF Reputation where based on 'Vote Ups' per answer divided by time then those who gave the best answers (or were personally the most liked people, for whatever reason) with the least number of tries, in the least amount of time would have this coveted high Reputation of which you speak.

Testing in most Schools works that way: One question, one answer, (often) one hour or less to answer a series of questions, no cheating, no retests. It should never be about if the Teacher (or other Students) like you the most or if your answer was the funniest (unless you are studying Comedy).

.

What about the needs of these high reputation answerers, does this question afford them anything save for more questions. Do they not have other interests, a Family, a Job that pays more. Where is the consideration of their needs, perhaps that is why they participate less often. If we could show our Marks from School (or other Websites) and be granted a starting Reputation that was specific to the area of expertise we purported to have.

Indeed, people may have discovered that answering certain types of questions would gain them a better reputation than answering others and their ability to cherry-pick has been honed. Is it a fault of the answerers that the fruit is not ripe but a fault of them that they chose to be a cherry-picker, to seek the low hanging fruit rather than to pursue a higher learning (and be able to better answer the questions of the Future).

Without a Study of exactly how the Reputation was gained, a means to evaluate reputation gained by such means, a manner in which to assign a value of such reputation to the holder of it and a means to determine the value of their reputation to us, along with Statistics to show a premise to your Hypotheses -- we are simply guessing about an estimate of something that may or may not exist.

A better question would be good but this gave me an opportunity the rest my mind from Computer Programming and spend some time dealing with Humans; instead of interfacing with Machinery all the time. Now back to turning the handle that makes the Internet run, programming will resume shortly.

I think the StackExchange network is largely responsible for the decline of SO. People got used to asking and answering weird off-topic questions and leading philosophical discussions on SE and carried it over to SO.

I also feel that there is a strong focus on earning reputation as more and more employers are asking to show an "active SO profile". At the same time, the system is very far from being fair: one short answer on a good topic such as "How to undo the last Git commit" can give you several thousand upvotes. A lot of such short questions have already been asked and answered. Reputation, in effect, has already been distributed, and new users are at a disadvantage. Thus, they naturally came up with a solution: ask and answer more off-topic questions so everyone can get more reputation.

"People got used to asking and answering weird off-topic questions and leading philosophical discussions on SE and carried it over to SO." On which Stack Exchange site are these things promoted? The whole spirit of the Stack Exchange network is answerable, on-topic questions with focused, helpful answers. Same thing on Stack Overflow.
–
Cody GrayMay 4 '14 at 10:29

1

Also, I don't know what your experience has been, but "an active SO profile" doesn't equal "lots of reputation". It means providing lots of helpful answers. For example, I accumulate lots of reputation each day from my old answers, but I have posted very few new answers of late. Would you consider me an "active" user? I wouldn't.
–
Cody GrayMay 4 '14 at 10:30

No, it's not crystal clear. Read the comments; the context is highly relevant to understanding its meaning, and without said context, a definition couldn't possibly be given. And even so, SO is not a dictionary (there are plenty of sites that are dictionaries, which would be an appropriate place to search for the definition of a term). This is not a programming problem.
–
ServyMay 8 '14 at 15:24

5

It looks like a bunch of folks trying to rack up points in C++ (normally full of softballs) see a question they cannot answer, so the knee jerk response is to put it on hold. Putting questions on hold does not earn you reputation.
–
David RobinsonMay 8 '14 at 15:29